I assume the technology you are referring to is that of DNA matching? If so, then I can tell you that it does not ensure that "nill to none that innocents die." While it is a very power evidence tool, having DNA alone is not proof of a crime. Nor am I aware of it being a requirement for a conviction. I would say DNA is a very good tool for exonerating people, but only a piece of the puzzle for convicting people.

I support it. I believe there are some irredeemably evil people in this world that have no place in our society. People who through their actions have demonstrated a total disregard for the sancity of human life and liberty. The only guarantee that such people will never again threaten the security of another is through permanent incarceration, or execution.

The only guarantee that such people will never again threaten the security of another is through permanent incarceration, or execution.

In the case of permanent incarceration, you're ignoring the threat to prison guards and other Corrections staffers... and other prisoners... plus the possibility of escape must always be considered.

gc wrote:

I would prefer permanent incarceration.

I would prefer a permanent solution to the permanent problem. Unfortunately, your preference was shoved down our collective throats by Trudeau despite all evidence of the costly ineffectiveness of your preference.

The Constitution and Charter would be used like a blunt instrument by advocacy groups to challenge any attempt to re-institute capital punishment and I don't see the liberal-stacked Supreme Court abstaining from passing judgement on that one!

I'm not interested in a public spectacle so hanging, electric chairs and gas chambers (with all the graphic imagery) don't appeal to me. Lethal injection is clinical, silent and final; a permanent solution.

Canadians haven't debated this recently and I'm fairly certain there hasn't been any cost analysis in recent years. In the US, where each state decides whether or not they will administer death sentences, the debate is ongoing. As such, there might be cost analysis available. I haven't looked; I find it hard to get excited about a subject which is almost moot in Canadian society. That being said, it's hard to imagine that the costs of trials and execution would meet or exceed the costs of keeping a prisoner in jail for the rest of his/her life, especially if you factor in the assorted appeals, "faint hope" applications, human rights complaints and other legal cases which such prisoners generate.

Besides, what value do you place on a human life? Someone who is going to be in jail for the rest of his life has nothing to lose which is why they're so dangerous to guards and other Corrections staffers. After all, what are you going to do if they assault or kill someone? Put them in jail forever twice??

To me, the death penalty is moot because we can't even fully punish the criminals we have now. With murders, rapists and thieves leaving a jail before the police officer has finished the paper work on the arrest, we have a problem. When they commit another crime on the same day, we have a problem. When a sentence of 50 years actually means 25 years, then skipping out on parole to commit again, we have a problem. When we have resorts, sorry I mean prisons, that offer golf therapy, we have a problem (I only got to golf 3 times this year, and these prisoners are getting to do it for free????).

To me, the death penalty won't fix any of that.

We need a system that punishes criminals and rewards our law enforcement officers, not the other way around. Maybe then we wouldn't even need to talk about the death penalty.

We need a system that punishes criminals and rewards our law enforcement officers, not the other way around. Maybe then we wouldn't even need to talk about the death penalty.

I know this might sound odd but I'm really not interested in rewards and I doubt most police officers would be since the vast majority of cops are Type 'A' personalities (strongly self-motivated). For us, the reward is a job well done, a decent salary and good benefits. Further recognition is a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have. Unless, by reward, you mean seeing appropriate sentencing of criminals... in which case, I'm in!!

As for punishing criminals, I would rather they were rehabilitated during incarceration but since most don't spend enough time in jail to get counseling, drug detox or whatever else they need to become a functional and contributing member of society. The Liberals pushed to bring about a new vision of how we "treat" criminals and, so far, I would say their vision was a dismal failure. Perhaps it's time to revisit the whole concept of rehabilitation and place the onus on prisoners to prove their fitness to re-enter society. In other words, the parole board's role would be changed from rubber stamping applications to examining what progress a prisoner makes in rehabilitating themselves.

Finally, there are some (ie: Olson, Bernardo) whose crimes are so horrific, the only appropriate response is capital punishment. By removing that as an option, we're stuck with keeping them in jail forever; a cruel, expensive and potentially dangerous option. To my view, lethal injection is much less cruel, less expensive and protects society much more effectively.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum